<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2001 (5) TMI 874 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105420</link>
    <description>An enabling securities regulator may issue interim restraint directions pending inquiry where the statute is construed broadly to protect investors and market integrity, and such action is treated as regulatory rather than punitive. No pre-decisional hearing is mandatory in cases of urgency and public interest if a meaningful post-decisional hearing is provided; natural justice is applied flexibly in that setting. The interim restraint was also not interfered with on grounds of lack of material, disproportionality, or violation of constitutional guarantees, as the Court declined to substitute its view for the regulator&#039;s assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:21:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142458" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 874 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105420</link>
      <description>An enabling securities regulator may issue interim restraint directions pending inquiry where the statute is construed broadly to protect investors and market integrity, and such action is treated as regulatory rather than punitive. No pre-decisional hearing is mandatory in cases of urgency and public interest if a meaningful post-decisional hearing is provided; natural justice is applied flexibly in that setting. The interim restraint was also not interfered with on grounds of lack of material, disproportionality, or violation of constitutional guarantees, as the Court declined to substitute its view for the regulator&#039;s assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105420</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>